In order that the same rules of interpretation should be considered
applicable to the Constitution of the Society and to that of the United
States, we must attribute to the former a solemnity and importance which
involve a palpable absurdity. To claim for it the verbal accuracy and the
legal wariness of a mere contract is equally at war with common sense and
the facts of the case; and even were it not so, the party to a bond who
should attempt to escape its ethical obligation by a legal quibble of
construction would be put in Coventry by all honest men. In point of fact,
the Constitution was simply the minutes of an agreement among certain
gentlemen, to define the limits within which they would accept trust-
funds, and the objects for which they should expend them.
But if we accept the alternative offered by the advocates of strict
construction, we shall not find that their case is strengthened. Claiming
that where the meaning of an instrument is doubtful, it should be
interpreted according to the contemporary understanding of its framers,
they argue that it would be absurd to suppose that gentlemen from the
Southern States would have united to form a society that included in its
objects any discussion of the moral duties arising from the institution of
Slavery. Admitting the first part of their proposition, we deny the
conclusion they seek to draw from it.
Pages:
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326